University of Hawaii Community Colleges
Instructional Annual Report of Program Data (ARPD)

Select the desired review year and college from the drop down menus. Once a college has been selected, the results will be displayed.

Review Year: College:

Honolulu Community College Executive Summary Printer Friendly
PDF PDF

 

The 2012 program review process is the second iteration of a new model for an integrated planning, implementation, budgeting and assessment that revolves around the program review process (HCCP. 5.202 Review of Established Programs).  The overarching goal of the program review process is to achieve a state of continuous quality improvement.   This process engages all appropriate faculty, staff and administrators in the review process.  In addition, a campus assessment committee is being reconstituted and will be take a key role in evaluating the program reviews, providing input and feedback and disseminating the results of the program reviews to the campus community.
 
The college continues to expand data-driven assessment, centered around student learning objectives, in all aspects of its operations, including student services, academic support, and administrative services areas.  This effort was partially completed at the time of the WASC/ACCJC accreditation visit in October 2012, and the accreditation team’s feedback has made it clear that the college needs to continue to push forward in this area.  It is expected that the hiring of the Dean of Academic Support and the filling of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services on a permanent basis (both in process) will greatly facilitate the college’s effort to develop and apply appropriate SLOs to all units on campus.
 
The campus re-organization process, partially identified as a necessity through program review, was approved in Summer 2012 and is in the process of being fully implemented over the 2012-13 academic year.  One of the key aspects of the reorganization was the creation of a student success unit, which will initially center around the college’s remedial/developmental office.  The college is in the process of hiring for two new positions for the student success unit, both of which will be directed at expanding the college’s retention efforts.  This will enable the college to focus on raising its fall-fall retention figure, which has historically been one of its problem areas.  The Academic Support area has not yet been fully transitioned, pending hire of the new position of Dean of Academic Support.  A more thorough assessment of the different offices within Academic Support will be forthcoming shortly.
As the remedial/developmental assessment indicates, the college is experiencing substantial improvement in student success with its newly implemented Essentials English program.  In Fall 2012, a newly created Essentials Writing Center was opened, and preliminary results indicate that this service is experiencing high demand from students and faculty.  The college is also experimenting with several sections of accelerated developmental courses, and in the next review cycle the effectiveness of this effort will be presented.
 
The 2012 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) results indicate that students report being significantly more engaged in several areas (support for learners, active and collaborative learning, and student-faculty interaction), while falling short on one measure of student effort relative to the national cohort.  With respect to the ARPD health call indicators: (a) Only two programs’ Demand ratio fall outside of one standard deviation of the college mean, and of those, Applied Trades ratio (119) results from an anomaly stemming from the use of a low new/replacement position figure in the denominator (2).  In fact, the APTR program’s students essentially are employed full-time throughout the program.  The relatively high demand ratio for Fashion Technology (43.3) is also a result of a small denominator, which reflects a somewhat narrow definition of available jobs in Hawai‘i for FT graduates.  To the extent that this can be corrected without compromising the CIP/SOC assignment to this program, the college will attempt to identify a more accurate range of jobs for this program. (b)  Only three programs’ fill rates fall below one standard deviation of the college mean (71%): the Early Childhood Education program, with a rate of 26%, reflects an error in the class size maximum that has been identified by the college and will be corrected.  The other two programs—Diesel (22%) and Aviation (49%)—are programs that have either experienced significant programmatic transition in 2011-12 or are restarting after a temporary stop-out period due to faculty shortage.  (c) Although the majors/BOR faculty ratio is used in the efficiency health call (and are discussed in the individual reviews), it is useful to also look at the majors/analytic faculty ratio, as it provides a perspective that reflects constraints that may not be apparent in the more stringent ratio.  The college’s mean is 42.9, with the APTR ratio falling well above one SD of this mark (again due to anomalies in the way instructors in that program are classified).  (d) Persistence from Fall to Spring averaged 73% across all programs, with no programs falling more than one SD below this average.  (e) Finally, the college continues to struggle to meet its Perkins nontraditional participation and completion goals.  A current Perkins project is enabling the college’s outreach counselors to target nontraditional students for several of the CTE programs, and it is expected that future years’ results will reflect this more concerted effort to attract and retain nontraditional students.
In summary, the college continues to expand the reach and improve the process of its program review.  Although it is focused right now on addressing areas that the accreditation report has identified as requiring further action, the ARPD metrics continue to be an active focus of discussion for the campus, and are helping to guide college initiatives.